Simply enter results for any of this year’s races and it will work out how the championship table will be altered. In the event of a tie on points between two drivers it will follow the FIA rules and rank them according to which driver has the most wins, second places and so on.

What we’ve all learned thus far into the 2014 F1 season is that anything is possible, especially with the reliability of the new FIA formula introdued this year. So providing that all is equal between Nico and Lewis, I think it’s fair to say that in such an instance it all comes down to skill, and Lewis has proven himself there time and again. But for real, anything can happen that can put a pall over the race for either Lewis or Nico…we’ll have to wait and observe on Sunday.

Thank you Keith. So now I can calculate the theoretical pain of double points in the final round:
Hamilton – 12 wins \ 4 x 2nd places (1 of these is the final round) \ 3 DNFs = 390 points
Rosberg – 6 wins (1 of these is the final round) \ 12 x 2nd places \ 1 DNF = 391 points
Double the race wins but no championship. It’s an extreme but possible situation given how the Mercedes drivers either finish first, second or not at all this season.

It could be even worse – Hamilton could win 13 races to Rosberg’s 5 and still lose the championship if Rosberg won Abu Dhabi with Hamilton failing to finish. This is a very unlikely outcome, though.

The likely outcomes (for Mercedes) are fairly easy to calculate if you have a realistic estimate of (i) the probability that a Mercedes fails to finish a race and (ii) the probability that one Mercedes driver will beat the other in any given race.

Based on the races to date, Mercedes has a ~20% failure rate and Hamilton has a ~66% probability of beating Rosberg (when they both finish) although in both cases there’s not much data to go on. Current betting odds imply a similar advantage for Hamilton, so a range of 10-20% on Mercedes failures and 50-70% on Hamilton beating Rosberg are not unrealistic.

Hamilton has to win 6 of the remaining 10 races and finish 2nd in the other 4 to guarantee a WDC…another DNF and he’s pretty much screwed. If the super-duper-double-points-bonanza at Abu Dabi ends up causing either one to win when they didn’t deserve it….I think there will be a backlash of some type.

And the chances of another team getting a 1st or 2nd unless a Merc has an issue are pretty much nill this year. At some point very soon (it it hasn’t already happened in reality), the other teams will stop all 2014 development and only do things they can use on next years car.

“And the chances of another team getting a 1st or 2nd unless a Merc has an issue are pretty much nill this year.”

Apart from if there is significant rain on race day in the next 10 races. The Merc is probably still the best car in those conditions but it’s definitely closer and at least is a performance leveller to some extent. Can see the Redbull’s competing and maybe others if conditions change quickly and strategy comes into play. Rosberg hasn’t been good in wet conditions so far this year (Silverstone being a slight exception) so maybe he will struggle. Hopefully Spa or Brazil could shake things up…

Unfortunately any reliability issues in the final round will most likely determine the winner of the championship, and I don’t think Hamilton’s Abu Dhabi reliability record is very good (2 out of 5 DNFs?).

whoever wins between Hamilton and rosberg I don’t care, I don’t consider either them the cream of the crop in f1, so either can have it in this stupid season when engine power dominates. it is their easiest chance of getting a title. Alonso and Vettel should be their fighting,not for engine power. Ricciardo is the rising star, the new young gun – shame he doesn’t have a merc engine, he could put lessons on Hamilton and rosberg like he is doing on vettel. Hulkenburg should be up their too.

Interesting you say Rosberg and Hamilton have an easy shot for having the best power unit/car. I don’t recall Alonso winning a title without the best package, Vettel arguably didn’t have the best package in 2010 and 2012, but especially 2012 was a season where if that car went, it went hard. Out of the active champions, I’d only say Raikkonen in 2007 didn’t have the best package (and won because of McLaren infighting rather than outperforming the car, not to demean his title, though) and Vettel in 2010. Having the best package makes any title easier. I’m not sure why you include Alonso and Vettel as somehow being superior, when they have won titles in cars that drove laps around the competition for at least a crucial part of the season as well.

I don’t recall Alonso winning a title without the best package, Vettel arguably didn’t have the best package in 2010 and 2012,

Alonso didn’t have the best package in 2006, where Renault were overall slightly slower and less reliable than Ferrari.

Also Red Bull had the best car in both 2010 and 2012. In 2010 the car was the fastest by a mile, only reliability held it down a little, but it was still the best car overall (like McLaren in 1999). In 2012 Red Bull had the equal fastest package with McLaren, but a more reliable one.

I’d only say Raikkonen in 2007 didn’t have the best package (and won because of McLaren infighting rather than outperforming the car, not to demean his title, though)

Really?

Ferrari F2007:
9 wins
9 poles
12 fastest laps
2622 km in the lead

McLaren MP4/22
8 wins
8 poles
5 fastest laps
2411 km lead

And McLaren had the superior Alonso/Hamilton duo, while Ferrari had the inferior Massa/Raikkonen pairing.

The Renault might not have been as good as the Ferrari, but I personally felt that the Michelin tyres gave enough of an advantage to tip the scale a little bit in their favor. Still, I wouldn’t compare the advantage to that of Red Bull in 2011 or Ferrari in 2004/2002, but ultimately I do personally feel that Alonso had the best package in 2006. This is also because Alonso was making very few mistakes and Schumacher clearly lost an edge he had a few years before.

As for McLaren in 2007, they and their drivers threw a lot away with Ferrari being close enough to pick up all the pieces with relative ease. Again, I do not find the difference to be as big as in seasons like 2002/4 or 2011, but McLaren should have won both titles in 2007 with ease. It’s a testament to their shortcomings as a team, rather than drivers-chassis-engine, in my opinion.

As for 2010 and 2012, I feel that in 2010 Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull all had their moments, but none of them had the best package overall. Red Bull clearly had an advantage, but didn’t manage to always use it to its full extent and lost tons of points because of driver errors. In 2012 they took their sweet time to get up to speed, but still had errors at crucial moments like a DNF for Vettel at Monza. I’d say 2012 had McLaren having the best car, but Red Bull had the better package, but the McLaren I’d consider to better the Red Bull car by enough to say I’d call it a tie.

I’d call 2006, 2007, 2010 and 2012 the seasons I view in shades of gray, too, so I tend to go with my gut.

This is also because Alonso was making very few mistakes and Schumacher clearly lost an edge he had a few years before.

Ironically enough, this is exactly why I believe that the F248 was a better car than the R26. Schumacher made more mistakes than Alonso, both lost ~18 points due bad luck, yet Michael was still able to run Fernando very close.

As for McLaren in 2007, they and their DRIVERS threw a lot away with Ferrari being close enough to pick up all the pieces with relative ease. Again, I do not find the difference to be as big as in seasons like 2002/4 or 2011, but McLaren should have won both titles in 2007 with ease. It’s a testament to their shortcomings as a team, rather than drivers-chassis-engine, in my opinion.

That still doesn’t answer. Why did the F2007 have the most wins, the most poles, the most fastest laps, and spend the most laps in the lead if the car was inferior to the MP4-22? Never-mind that McLaren had Hamilton and Alonso driving for them, while Ferrari had Raikkonen and Massa. In later years Alonso proved to be superior to both.

In 2012 they took their sweet time to get up to speed, but still had errors at crucial moments like a DNF for Vettel at Monza. I’d say 2012 had McLaren having the BEST CAR, but Red Bull had the better package, but the McLaren I’d consider to better the Red Bull car by enough to say I’d call it a tie.

Ironically enough, this is exactly why I believe that the F248 was a better car than the R26. Schumacher made more mistakes than Alonso, both lost ~18 points due bad luck, yet Michael was still able to run Fernando very close.

I’ve actually said in the previous post I agree the R26 probably wasn’t as good a car as the Ferrari, but my hypothesis is that the package Alonso had was ultimately better. Of course, we could have different ideas on what is in a package and what roles the elements therein play.

I’d also like to point out again that I’m not going by data alone, as there are more variables than misfortune and I personally consider the potential of a package perhaps moreso than the factual results. This goes especially for 2012, which was a rather ‘random’ season with a lot of ups and downs for a lot of teams, so I’ve never really made up my mind to what degree what team had a package of which level. I personally think Red Bull edges it, but McLaren, much like 2007 in my opinion, should have done more.

Never-mind that McLaren had Hamilton and Alonso driving for them, while Ferrari had Raikkonen and Massa. In later years Alonso proved to be superior to both.

By how much would you call the driver line up superior though? Again, I do take into account the potential the package has, rather than the potential wasted, which I’m beginning to think is the main difference in our views of the competitiveness of packages. I’m not disagreeing Alonso/Hamilton is a stronger line up, but I’m not sure if superior is the word I’d use. Hamilton was still a rookie and Raikkonen and Massa were in the form of their lives.

I have to admit, though, that looking at the data paints a different picture, but I’ve come to want to look beyond the data, as it doesn’t tell the entire story of F1, in my opinion. Not everything can be quantified. Perhaps we should agree to disagree?

Vettel had a somewhat unreliable package in 2010. But the pace of that car was absolutely incredible, and particularly staggering in qualifying. Of all the title challengers he probably made the most errors though, which proved to be something of an equaliser to the competition, about as much the the car breaking down (and Webber stayed in the hunt in the same car by being a bit weaker but less significantly error-prone). So on balance I would say the Red Bull was certainly the strongest package- Webber being so close to winning the title proves that for me.

and Webber stayed in the hunt in the same car by being a bit weaker but less significantly error-prone

And I forgot to mention that when reliability problems struck, they hit Vettel harder, which is part of why for me the best driver of the season definitely came down to one of Hamilton, Alonso and Vettel, but neither of the close but luckier and less spectacular Webber or Button.

Personally I’d say 2010 is a 3 way tie, with Red Bull having the best when it was most crucial. They had the quickest car, but didn’t always utilize it and it had some real reliability problems. Taking into account the drivers, the errors Vettel made were many, but the errors Webber made were very costly, as he didn’t have to room for them. Webber taking himself out of the Korean GP and at the same time the championship somehow ended up costing him more than Vettel taking out himself and Button of the Belgian GP. The drivers are why I’d say Red Bull doesn’t have a clear best package over the entire season, as it seemed to shift every few races from Alonso/Ferrari to the McLarens or Red Bulls.

I’m not going to disagree Vettel wasn’t the driver who deserved the championship, because the unreliability and his errors still had him winning the championship. If I were Button, Hamilton or Alonso, I’d eat myself up a lot worse about 2010 than I would on 2012.

So you’re saying that the value of a race win during the bulk of the season has gone from 1/19 of the championship to 1/20. In the same way the points in the final round have gone from being 1/19 of the championship to 2/20. So if we’re being pedantic and taking it as a value of the championship as a whole rather than in context and compared to a particular relevant round, the term double points itself is incorrect, as it should be specifically 1.9 times the points?